First thing - "aiki" as Daito Ryu talks about it and "aiki" as M. Ueshiba talked about it can be two quite different things.

Originally posted by tedehara

Could you explain what you see as the difference?

For the most part, when Daito-ryu folks talk about "aiki" they're making a technical reference. M. Ueshiba talked about "aiki" in a philosophical sense. He said himself many times that the "aiki" that he was talking about was different from the previous uses of the word.

Quote:

Are you saying that the only diffence between Aikido and Aiki-jitsu is the philosopy? There is no different direction that can be found in the techniques of the two Arts?

Are there technical differences? Sure, but you have to remember that neither Aikido nor Daito-ryu are monolithic. They both cover wide ranges of technical variation. They're close enough that, IMO, if M. Ueshiba had kept the name Daito-ryu nobody would have thought it odd (in the technical sense).

Quote:

I mentioned the name change and Takeda to show that two experts both agreed that what Morihei Ueshiba was doing should no longer be called Aiki-jitsu.

Why do you think Takeda was more actively involved?

I didn't say involved, I said not "complacent". So far as I know there was never any "agreement" between the two. The had various disagreements for a number of reasons and M. Ueshiba ended up going his own way. Ueshiba changed the name several times, but the name of Daito-ryu itself was also in flux around that time. What I was saying was that the split was probably not as amicable as you made it appear.